ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by Bandwidth':
from
The ARRL Letter, Vol 26, No 12
on
March 23, 2007
Website:
http://www.arrl.org/
View comments about this article!
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by Bandwidth':
In the wake of recent changes in the Part 97 Amateur Radio rules, the ARRL
has revised its “regulation by bandwidth” proposals to match the new
reality, avoid some unintended consequences and temper some of the
controversy the original petition had aroused. In a November 2005 Petition
for Rule Making (RM-11306
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/RM-11306-asFiled.pdf ), the
League asked the FCC to establish a regulatory regime that would segment
bands by necessary bandwidths ranging from 200 Hz to 100 kHz rather than by
emission mode. The ARRL now is urging the FCC to adopt a "subset” of the
rules
http://www.arrl.org/announce/regulatory/rm-11306/appendixA.html contained
in its original petition that largely affects only the amateur bands at 28
MHz and above.
“Because the proposals affecting the bands above 28 MHz had not aroused much
controversy, they were retained in the shortened list,” ARRL CEO David
Sumner, K1ZZ, explained this week. “Regulation by bandwidth rather than by
mode of emission remains controversial below 28 MHz because of its perceived
potential impact on established operating patterns, so these proposals were
removed from the list with one narrow exception.”
That exception addresses the fact that current rules impose no effective
bandwidth limit on HF digital operation. “Digital emissions using multiple
carriers, such as OFDM [orthogonal frequency division multiplexing], can be
designed for any bandwidth while staying within the existing rules,” Sumner
points out, “so, the subset of proposed rule changes includes a bandwidth
limit of 3 kHz on RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz.”
The proposed 3 kHz RTTY/data bandwidth limit aims to avoid the possibility
existing under the present rules that a single digital station could
monopolize large MF and HF band segments. In an Erratum this week the ARRL
also asked the FCC to retain the existing 500 Hz bandwidth limit that
applies to certain automatically controlled RTTY/data stations under
§97.221.
The ARRL proposal would amend the definition of “bandwidth” in §97.3(a)(8)
to read: “For a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band
which is sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate
and with the quality required under specified conditions.” The rule
references the definition of “necessary bandwidth” appearing in Parts 2 and
97 of the FCC rules.
If the FCC adopts the League’s revised proposals, the 10, 6 and 2 meter
amateur bands would be segmented into subbands allowing maximum emission
bandwidths of 200 Hz, 500 Hz, 3.0 kHz (with an exception for
double-sideband, full-carrier AM phone), 16 kHz or 100 kHz. Above 222 MHz,
the entire emission must be within the allocated Amateur Radio band to
comply with §97.307(d).
Sumner concedes that the subset of proposed rule changes in RM-11306 would
provide less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than the
League’s original proposals afforded, but not less than the existing rules
provide. “In fact, protection against interference from wideband digital
modes would be increased, not decreased, even by adoption of the subset,” he
contended.
Some confusion arose because of an inadvertent omission in the initial
notice of a meeting on this subject between ARRL officials and FCC staff.
This week's Erratum addressed that issue.
Additional consternation followed in the wake of a widely circulated, but
erroneous, comment alleging "the complete absence of CW as a mode in the
table of HF modes" the ARRL submitted. The ARRL has proposed no change to
§97.305(a) of the rules, which authorizes CW on all amateur frequencies
except on 60 meters.
The League has petitioned the FCC to permit CW and other modes on 60 meters,
in addition to the presently permitted upper-sideband SSB.
After studying the topic several years, the ARRL Board of Directors
continues to support the principles of regulation by bandwidth contained in
the original RM-11306 petition.
“Regulation by bandwidth provides a better regulatory framework, not only
for the introduction of future digital emissions but for the protection of
traditional narrowband modes as well,” Sumner asserted this week. He
expressed the hope that the subset of RM-11306 modifications offers an
alternative that “will make it easier for the FCC to move at least part of
the way in that direction.”
Source:
The ARRL Letter
Vol. 26, No. 12
March 23, 2007
This article has expired. No more comments may be added.
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by W3ULS on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
It took a while for the other shoe to drop up in Newington.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
“Regulation by bandwidth rather than by mode of emission remains controversial below 28 MHz ...........** because of its perceived *potential impact* on established operating patterns,*** so these proposals were removed from the list with one narrow exception.”
“Digital emissions using multiple carriers, such as OFDM [orthogonal frequency division multiplexing], can be designed for any bandwidth while staying within the existing rules,” Sumner points out,“so, the subset of proposed rule changes includes a bandwidth limit of 3 kHz on RTTY and data emissions below 28 MHz.”
>>> "Perceived potential impact" ?!!? Talk about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. Why doesn't Dave Sumner just use straightforward layman's terms so that everyone can see this proposal for what it really is? Why do I get the feeling they would rather cloud this controversy with "haze" and hope it just slides on through??
The ARRL want's to expand bandwidth limits from 500Hz to 3000 Hz (3 Khz) under 28 Mhz....PERIOD.
Regulation by Bandwidth is a great concept....... for engineers that is, who have the necessary equipment to monitor emissions. But which Pactor or WinLink user that you know will honestly monitor their emissions to insure they comply with a Regulation by Bandwidth proposal?? That's right, you can count them on one hand.....
..... WA1RNE
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by AB0WR on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Take a real close look at that 100khz bandwidth on 2meters!!!
The ARRL wants to allow 100khz wideband OFDM and QAM right in the middle of the current coordinated repeater subbands!!
This proposal just stinks to high heaven from one end of our spectrum to the other. There is absolutely no reason why the current repeater frequency spectrum should be specfied as 100khz data spectrum in the FCC rules. Admittedly the repeater subbands are identified only as a gentleman's agreement and are not formalized in the regulations.
But you can be that once wideband data *IS* formalized in the regulations that you will not be able to keep those digital elitists who want to use our ham spectrum for internet gateway links off of our repeater input and output frequencies. All they will have to do is point to the regulations specficially allowing such operation and claim priority use -- whether it is such or not.
If you haven't already posted a comment on the FCC site about RM-11306 I would urge you to do so. All you need to say is that you do not agree with the ARRL proposal allocating spectrum currently used for FM repeater operation, which is widely used for emergency operations, to wideband 100khz data operation. This shows a total disregard for current gentleman's agreements on the 2meter band and does not bode well for the ARRL's ability to come up with gentleman's agreements for band usage under RM-11306.
Folks, it's just one more camel's nose trying to poke under the tent in order to monopolize current amateur spectrum for internet gateway links. Don't allow it. Tell the FCC how you feel about your local repeaters being designated for wideband data operation.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by K0RFD on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If the ARRL wants 3K wide digital signals, let them be up front about it and put those signals in the phone portion of the band. What's that? The members wouldn't like it? How would the ARRL know? They never asked the members about this proposal or any other.
I will be commenting to the FCC about the this proposal. I will be pointing out that the ARRL is not speaking for its members on this issue.
Regulation by bandwidth went over like a fart in church last time. Now the ARRL is trying to scare up support for regulation by bandwidth by trying to pollute the rest of the digital spectrum.
We've gone from a fart in church to a turd in the punchbowl.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5GNB on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
What I would like to know is just WHO is going to enforce and monitor this bandwith requirement once it goes into action??
Let's see, I guess I need to check into how I am going to "Modify" my old Viking II for a 3kc bandwidth on 10-meter AM.
It would take YEARS before there was sufficient equipment on the market to meet this specification, in the meantime, it would be virtually uninforceable.
|
| |
|
We gotta comment on RM-11306 yet again?
|
|
|
by N4QA on March 23, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was always a little dizzy but now my head is really spinning.
Is this article about the ARRL's original revision to RM-11306 or is this the revision to the original revision revised?
Does FCC have a witch doctor on staff who can decipher multiple layers of revised revisions?
Is that really Dave Sumner in the Dodge commercial operating the dyno controls such that the dynos play 'Smoke on the water' ?
Tune in text time when Sumner says:
" It's all just been a big mistake...er, I mean..misunderstanding".
Champagne wishes, everyone!
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: We gotta comment on RM-11306 yet again?
|
|
|
by K5YF on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It is my opinion that we don't need the restrictions we have now. The use of a mode or a "bandwidth patch" need not be protected by regulation.
Put another way: the wheels of government and pseudo government (ARRL) move much too slowly to accommodate technological changes. What we don't need is more regulation.
What we do need is standards of operation. i.e. Splatter is bad, clean signal is good -- and we have that codified in part 97 and elsewhere within FCC regs.
Including the rules that are in place to punish those that maliciously interfere, require the spectrum to be shared, give way to emergency or H&W traffic, coordinate repeater frequencies, limit power output, etc.
...I'm trying to think ahead here, way ahead. We outgrew the bandwidth issue 20 years ago and it just now has the attention of someone at the league but they have the wrong solution in mind to take us forward. The slotted allocation scheme, whether by bandwidth or mode, stifles innovation and prevents experimentation. Let's get out of that box. The amateur COMMUNITY is capable of working out the band plan by using the spectrum. Let us find a way to fill every spot in the spectrum that's allocated to us, then ask for more space and have proof that we need it because use is the key. It's better for all of us even if the band were totally full of some exotic new mode. People will still enjoy all the other modes as well. I think we are smart enough to find others working our preferred mode.
I am sincere in this and I need your help if you agree. Anyone who is willing to help me write this as a proper pleading to the FCC please contact me at the email address in my eHam profile.
73 and be well my friends,
N5JYK
|
| |
|
RE: We gotta comment on RM-11306 yet again?
|
|
|
by W2RDD on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4QA my head is spinning too and nausea is setting in.
The ARRL should now be declared a health hazard and a clean-up of that hazardous site authorized.
I am sick of their machinations.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N3JI on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
by W5GNB on March 23, 2007
What I would like to know is just WHO is going to enforce and monitor this bandwith requirement once it goes into action??
Let's see, I guess I need to check into how I am going to "Modify" my old Viking II for a 3kc bandwidth on 10-meter AM.
It would take YEARS before there was sufficient equipment on the market to meet this specification, in the meantime, it would be virtually uninforceable."
They are allowing an exception for AM & FM, but for gosh sakes, why are they stirring the pot again?? And if they didn't learn the first time, they're imposing a "3kHz limit on phone". What does that mean? 3 kHz at the -6dB points? -26dB points? Where? This is just ridiculous, but I'll let my head clear, read the proposal from front to back (AGAIN!) and post my reply. I'm too pissed right now to put together something coherent. And you're right of course about the enforcement issue -- I think it was the main reason the FCC shot it down before (even though they cited other reasons).
Joe, N3JI
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by NT4XT on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I used to be neutral about how I felt about ARRL. Unless I misinterpret what I read in plain English, this modified proposal seeks to limit RTTY and data anywhere in the CW Amateur HF spectrum to 3Kc. They contend, that there were previously no regulations on bandwidth and emmission for Amateur data transmissions below 28 MHz. And yet there seemed to not be a problem perceived or otherwise, with regard to 3Kc wide data transmissions in the CW sub-bands.
Now they ask for 3 Kc wide data transmissions in these previously narrow-width segments of the HF bands.
Now I ask you all- if generally accepted SSB widths even in the phone sections of the band are no more than 3Kc, then what is the point of having a narrow-width sub-band, if the max allowable HIGH DUTY CYCLE (read obliterating) bandwidth of RTTY in the CW sub-bands becomes legally sanctioned to be 3 Kc?
You may as well say, you can do SSB in the previously narrow-width emission sections of HF bands, the effect would be the same. That is one step removed from simply saying, you can do whatever emission/mode you want, in any portion of any Amateur HF band you want, any time you want.
SO WHAT- if CW is allowed in the phone portions of a band, why would a momentarily CW op- want to have to listen to QRM from stations 4 to 6 times their own width.
What makes sense is, if you want to have emissions 3Kc wide, then do it in the phone band, where it is generally accepted practice for emissions of such girth!
I am having difficulty imagining how allowing house moving widths of 3Kc in the traditionally narrow mode segments of spectrum (CW sub-bands), helps the concept of advancing the state of the art. Why would there be an incentive to develope narrow band data modes with higher through put? There would be no NEED to do so, everyone can just fire up their drivers, turn on the amp, and run RTTY.
CW may be ancient, but it doesn't harm by taking up massive amounts of space. RTTY on the otherhand, at 3kc, takes up a lot of space.
There was a movie long ago, I was a child, it was called Rollerball, starring James Khan. It was a lot more about the Corporations assuming control over every aspect of human life, about profit motives ruling everything, than it was about roller skating.
Sometimes, rollerskating is simply fun, and harms no one. We are humans, not Cylons.
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by W1ITT on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am curious as to why the bandwidth exception only covers "full carrier" double-sideband AM phone. Double-sideband suppressed carrier (dsbsc) is an interesting mode that has some potential advantages. First, it is easier to generate than ssb in homebrew rig. Second, with synchronous detectors that recreate the missing carrier, it offers advantages in selective fading situations. Not much has been done in the Amateur world with dsbsc detectors since vacuum-tube days when dsbsc detectors were bulky power hogs. With the various solid state goodies around, experimentation with optimum detectors for dsbsc would be good fun.
When the League originally came out with their bandwidth proposal, I emailed someone there who was listed as their contact person. The curt but polite reply told me to watchdog this one myself. Part of the basis and purpose for Amateur Radio is experimentation, and dsbsc is ripe for that. Let's not toss this baby out with the bathwater in our haste.
|
| |
|
ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by N4QA on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
As of 1700Z 24 March 2007, there are 1474 records for RM-11306 on file at FCC.
Of those, there are four records, filed on behalf of 'ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio'. They are:
03-22-07 10 pages 'Errata, Erratum or Addendum'
02-14-07 7 pages 'Notice'
02-21-06 14 pages 'Reply to Comments'
11-04-05 25 pages 'View'
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by K7UF on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If they want regulation on these wideband signals so badly, how about a nice simple system.
Power limit by bandwidth. No limit at all on signal bandwidth so long as it stays within the band, but for signals > 3khz the maximum power (EIRP) is limited to 1.5kw * 1/(bw in khz).
So frequency hogs "pay" for their use of wideband signals by being limited in radiated power.
100khz bw = 1.5w EIRP
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
For those who are tired of the ARRL submitting new proposals with out ratification of said proposal from it's entire membership, please feel free to use the following as your opening paragraph for your comments on RM-11306 ex-Parte.
******************************************************
To whom it may Concern,
As a member of the ARRL, I can attest that the ARRL did not petition the majority of its membership for comments regarding the content within RM-11306 ex-Parte filing of February 14th and the Erratum filed on March 22 prior to submission to the FCC. If they were to have done so, they would have encountered much opposition within the ARRL community. Instead, and in avoiding such internal opposition, the ARRL filed the RM-11306 ex-Parte and the subsequent Erratum sight unseen by the majority of its membership, thus using the FCC as the arbitrator in this matter. This is a blatant waste of your time and budget as these issues could have been internally resolved prior to any filing. Please review this ARRL member’s opposing comments below.
******************************************************
One upset and obviously forgotten ARRL member,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I wish this League would just go away and quit trying to change things. Things have been going very well for the past 87 years and I do not see how a group who only represents a little over 20% of Amateur Radio Operators in the United States seem to know more than the other 73%. They should quit this nonsense and save face. It is very embarrassing to the little membership they dictate too. Big changes in personnel is what is needed.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by K5UJ on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I find it very disturbing that this filing in mid-February and the meeting that preceded it were, as far as I know, not mentioned at all in any ARRL communication, including their news website, where it could have easily and immediately been reported. I see now, that following the discovery of this meeting and filing that took place SIX weeks ago, that the ARRL has suddenly put up a news item about it on their website. The ARRL has some explaining to do, especially if they do not wish to cultivate the image of being an organization for whom the ends justfy the means.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
N4DSP, I whole heartedly agree. The only way the ARRL is going to truly increase their membership, and thus voice, to something better than ~20% is to start representing the majority, not the minority. Only then will they see any kind of substantial increase in membership. And it looks as though for that to happen, a change in leadership, or at least direction, will have to take place. If the current direction and practices are allowed to continue, they will eventually commit the proverbial political suicide in the FCC's eyes. Once that happens, they might as well disband as it will be excruciating and expensive to get any motion passed through the FCC with the ARRL's stamp on it.
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL's record on RM-11306
|
|
|
by N4QA on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sumner concedes that the subset of proposed rule changes in RM-11306 would
provide less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than the
League’s original proposals afforded, but not less than the existing rules
provide..."
Gee, Dave, just WHOSE SIDE are you ON?
Folks, please just say "NO!"...yet again...to ARRL's now spinning out of control RM-11306 !
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"As a member of the ARRL, I can attest that the ARRL did not petition the majority of its membership for comments regarding the content within RM-11306 ex-Parte filing of February 14th and the Erratum filed on March 22 prior to submission to the FCC. If they were to have done so, they would have encountered much opposition within the ARRL community."
How would anyone know they would have encountered opposition if no one polled the membership? It may be better to just state the membership was never polled and you're uncertain the ARRL position represents that of the majority of its membership.
I wasn't pleased they didn't poll the membership either for an issue like this. But they do have an organization of elected officials, elected by us members to make decisions.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Let's see, I guess I need to check into how I am going to "Modify" my old Viking II for a 3kc bandwidth on 10-meter AM."
AM has had an exemption from the 3kc limit in all their proposals.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"The ARRL want's to expand bandwidth limits from 500Hz to 3000 Hz (3 Khz) under 28 Mhz....PERIOD. "
Then why didn't they file for that?
"Regulation by Bandwidth is a great concept....... for engineers that is, who have the necessary equipment to monitor emissions"
"Necessary equipment" can be a PC with a soundcard and a typical ham receiver. But in looking at this practically, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the bandwidth of something as a certain baud rate digital or CW signal usually has a predictable bandwidth, barring intermodulation.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
StraightKey,
Point well taken! My statement of "If they were to have done so, they would have encountered much opposition within the ARRL community." was an assumption on my part solely based upon currently voiced opinions and statements in such forums as eHam and various other groups. Unfortunately my comments have already been filed. So when are the next elections?
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by VE3WGO on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On 220 MHz and up, there is no mention of the Weak Signal subbands and EME subbands (section 97.305f). Also satellite subbands are gone.
...unless those are mentioned somewhere else like 97.307d which is referenced in the table, but I can't find that in the original or revised version.
What happened? Doesn't ARRL like those modes anymore? Maybe AMSAT has to place a phone call to ARRL....
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by KN4LF on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am a member of the ARRL though at times I ask myself why, as I have disagreed with virtually everything that they have proposed in the past ten years or so. The ARRL proposed RM-11306 segregation of modes by bandwidth proposal to the FCC filed in late 2005 is a disaster waiting to happen, as it will allow the wide band automatic and semiautomatic PACTOR stations to transmit anywhere in the HF and some VHF phone sub bands. Fortunately ham's have opposed the proposal by an 8 to 1 ratio, however as of yet the FCC has not acted on the proposal.
Automatic PACTOR stations create horrific QRM as they do not listen before transmitting and semi automatic PACTOR stations basically create the same problem due to the vagaries of HF propagation. I've had dozens of digital QSO's wiped out when a very wide PACTOR 2 PMBO station has begun transmitting on top of my QSO.
Unhappy with their defeat of the original proposal RM-11306, recently the ARRL had a meeting with FCC officials concerning some changes to the original RM-11306 proposal. Out of that meeting came a document showing that the ARRL asked the FCC to allow wide band automatic and semiautomatic PACTOR stations to transmit anywhere in the CW sub bands. In other words the old switcheroo, where the original proposal for the phone sub bands was switched to the CW sub bands. There is the appearance of smoke filled back room politics going on between the ARRL and the FCC.
The ARRL did not poll it's membership concerning the proposed changes to RM-11306 nor did they inform the membership of the meeting with the FCC, both before or after the meeting took place. When the ham radio community found out about the latest ARRL proposal during the week of March 18, 2007, a firestorm of protest comments were filed with the ARRL and FCC. So in response to the filed protest comments the ARRL posted a response on the issue on it's website on Friday March 23, 2007. They stated that the document contained some clerical errors and that they did not ask the FCC to allow wide band automatic and semiautomatic PACTOR stations to transmit anywhere in the CW sub bands.
So was it a clerical error or were they caught red handed and now taking a back pedaling action? In any event one issue still remains in that the ARRL did not poll nor inform the membership concerning the proposed changes to RM-11306. The ARRL owes it's membership an apology over the error and the fact that it failed to inform their membership of the proposed changes to RM-11306 filed with the FCC. I think that the correct move by the ARRL would have been to file a new RM from scratch. There is a thread about the controversy on QRZ.com at the link below.
http://www.qrz.com/ib-bin/ikonboard.cgi act=ST&f=3&t=150129
I strongly disagree with the ARRL's adoption and promotion of the Winlink 2000 only hardware system and the related PACTOR III digital mode. It is basically a commercial ISP type email service operating (WE CAN NAME IT THE HAMSTERNET) on the non-commercial HF ham bands, so that Yachtsmen and RV'ers can have email access as they cruise around the globe. Basically the ARRL has twice supported a special interest group Winlink 2000, instead of ham radio operators at large. There is the appearance of smoke filled back room politics going on between the ARRL and the Winlink 2000 people. I think that this is a definite legal "conflict of interest" and precludes the ARRL from ever being accepted again as representing the radio amateur community, either before the FCC, the international meetings or in band planning.
I think that the ARRL has a serious and growing credibility problem with the FCC. The slow downward slide began when the ARRL sued the FCC over loss of portions of the 1.25 cm band many years back. Recent disrespect and verbal abuse of a certain FCC official by a certain ARRL big wig over the BPL issue doesn't help either. Plus the ARRL is suing the FCC again, this time over the BPL issue.
The ARRL has seemingly become virtually unresponsive to it's membership both directly and also through it's Director's. It appears that their main goal now is to make money, i.e. Homeland Security grants, etc., with preservation of a viable ham radio service as a secondary concern. The only real option that you have if you oppose a proposed rule making to the FCC by the ARRL, is to file opposing comments to the FCC via the "Electronic Comment Filing System" at the link below. The FCC ECFS site is about as close as it comes to real Democracy. A real solution would be to start a real "National Association For Amateur Radio".
Last but not least I hold no personal animosity or malice towards the ARRL. I just feel strongly that they are destroying the excellent traditions that have made the ham radio hobby great. It's really similar in many ways to the U.S. Congress (both Democrat and Republican), in that they are destroying the excellent traditions that have made our country great. Destroy tradition in ham radio and you get rude and vulgar CB mentality types on the air and Extra Class ham's that don't know how to build a simple dipole, etc. Destroy tradition in our country and you get road rager's killing people on the highways, kids killing kids and teachers in school, etc.
- -... ...- -,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
kn4lf@earthlink.net
KN4LF SWL & Amateur Radio Autobiography: http://www.kn4lf.com
New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
"If it's politically correct it's a lie"
"It is not the class of license that the Amateur holds but the class of the Amateur that holds the license"
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by K0ZN on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
1.) The ARRL continues to prove that they do not communicate with the ham community; they simply want to govern and dictate in accordance with their agenda.
2.) The ARRL continues to show they are out of touch
with the "aveage" ham. Common sense clearly indicates that "modes" are much easier for the average guy to understand and comply with than some theoretical (and often unmeasureable) bandwidth standard.
3.) As of late, the FCC has been doing a better job of representing the MAJORITY of hams than the ARRL.
You really have to wonder what is REALLY going through those "executive" minds in Newington. If this madness goes through, you can expect more and more people to QRO inorder to have a stronger signal than the adjacent interference. Some modes simply do not mix in the same subband. "Insane....."
The ARRL unquestionably does as much damage to Amateur Radio as it does good. Sad situation.....
-- K0ZN
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by W3ULS on March 24, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Fellas, you have missed the most significant part of this most recent ARRL exercise: David Sumner went to Washington!
I don't think Sumner has set foot in the Nation's Capital in five years--or if he has, it's been on a stealth mission like the February 13 one. And when do you think the ARRL's President and "CEO" were together in D.C.? I'd wager never.
So this was a historic, though unreported, event, illuminating the real priorities of the ARRL. There's no evidence that the two caballeros, during their stay, ventured from the FCC to Capitol Hill to thank the few and the brave members of Congress who have volunteered to help out with legislation the ARRL claims is its top priority. (Not thanking your friends is a sure way to lose them.)
Nope. Harrison & Co. were spending big bucks of ARRL's slender government relations budget pushing some sort of venture that seems to have commercial overtones and is of no value whatsoever to the vast majority of radio amateurs.
If it was an overnighter, did the duo stay at the Four Seasons? The Madison? Or maybe the Days Inn on Connecticut Avenue? Who picked up the dinner tab?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Whomever the person is that's going by "Straightkey", if you're a licensed amateur radio operator, I'll provide you with a response.
Otherwise, for all I know you're just a CB'er with a made up "handle" who doesn't have a vested interest in this subject, so you don't deserve a response - at least not on this forum.
I noticed you also don't provide your name. As I recall, CB'ers never provided their real name either.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits it failed
|
|
|
by WA3VJB on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The ARRL, a small, non-profit publishing company in
Newington Connecticut, has abandoned a threat to
impose a system of bandwidth segregation on the
various modes and activities on HF below 10 meters.
In an email to the club's volunteer administrators,
Dave Sumner, the company's highest-paid, unelected
staffer, seems to have acknowledged the overwhelming
opposition arrayed against his group's plan the past
several years.
Those who subscribe to the ARRL can pursue the full
text, which contains several insults and additional
patronizing language to those of us who dared to
question the scheme their group tried to slip through.
Keywords:
--And for the truly paranoid
--don't know all the facts
--making their complaints and threats
--have other motives
It is important to note that the club continues to try
to sneak through the small, remaining portion of their
scheme that opponents had not, until now, chosen to
challenge.
The matter of ten meters means there is still a threat.
Fresh opposition remarks about the fraction the League
continues to push are now being filed and accepted on
the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System.
|
| |
|
RM-11305 down...RM-11306 to go!
|
|
|
by N4QA on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I Hadn't checked comments on RM-11305 for a while.
You guys had a look at comments on RM-11305 since 11-06-06 ?
Seems it was withdrawn...a couple of times.
72.
Bill, N4QA
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits it failed
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
WA1RNE, STRAIGHTKEY is what I call a "league Lackey." It seems that his sole purpose in life is to defend the ARRL's actions, whatever they may be. If you say anything against the League, he is quick to flame and harass you. He tries to intimidate by talking down to you in a condescending manner and tries to make you look like an idiot that knows nothing. He accused me of not reading and comprehending. I did read and I did comprehend. KN4LF explained it beautifully. The League backpedaled. They tested the waters on 2/13 by trying to shove their bandwidth crap in the back door. It didn't matter that RM-11306 met with overwhelming opposition in late 2005. They sought to switch from the phone sub bands to the CW sub bands to ram their Winlink robots down everyone's throats. When they saw that their plan backfired 100%, they backpedaled and chalked 2/13 up to a "clerical error". The League can't be trusted. All this "closed-door" crap with the FCC behind their members' backs proves it.
I wised up in 2004 when the ARRL submitted their license give-away proposal to the FCC without consulting the membership. I became an ex-ARRL member on 8/31/04 and I am proud of it. Unlike many others that outright canceled their membership in 1/04, I let my membership lapse and I never looked back.
Wake up everybody! The ARRL doesn't act in the best interest of amateur radio. They sell amateur radio down the river for the almighty dollar. The League does what is best for the League, and what's best for those in their inner circle and those who are in special interest groups that line their pockets. And don't give me this BS about "the only game in town." The League's crooked games we don't need. Would you go into a casino if you knew they were using loaded dice? Would you go into a casino if you knew they were dealing marked cards off the bottom of the deck? Just because they're the only game in town, doesn't mean you have to play.
I made it clear to the FCC in my comment to RM-11306 that "the American Radio Relay League does not speak for me. I will speak for myself regarding any issues, proposed rule changes and anything else that may affect my use of my amateur radio privileges, which are granted to me by the Federal Communications Commission, not the American Radio Relay League".
By the way, STRAIGHTKEY, I know who you are. You come from San Diego, but you now reside in the Tampa-St. Pete area. I'll do you a favor for now. For now, I won't divulge your callsign. You seem to be the League's staunchest defender. I sincerely wonder if there's anything in it for you ($ green $) from the ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Whomever the person is that's going by "Straightkey", if you're a licensed amateur radio operator, I'll provide you with a response. "
I'm a licensed amateur, so go ahead.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sumner concedes that the subset of proposed rule changes in RM-11306 would provide less protection to CW, RTTY and other narrowband modes than the League's original proposals afforded."
What is this guy doing? Is he senile or just plain stupid? CW has had protection for the past 87 years and this guy wants to change that with his endorsement of this revision. There was such an outcry when word got out that the original 11306 was going to cause terrible interference in the SSB portions of the band and now this yo-yo wants a subset to the proposed rule changes that is going to create mess in the cw and rtty portions.
Like I stated before they need to go away and quit this nonsense. They are an elite club seeking out their own interests. If you do not think they are a club then read the book "200 meters and down" published by the ARRL.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"My statement of "If they were to have done so, they would have encountered much opposition within the ARRL community." was an assumption on my part solely based upon currently voiced opinions and statements in such forums as eHam and various other groups"
Eham or other forums aren't a scientific survey of ARRL members or all of amateur radio for that matter. More vocal people flock to forums and negative views tend to drown out positive ones. I think we've seen many of those who agree with ARRL policies most of the time (not all) abandon forums. Once discussions degrade into the frequent ARRL follow the money rants that lack facts, it's hard for anyone supporting an ARRL position to stick around. (Look at some of the posts in this article) So, we're left with probably 15-20 people at eham who are against everything ARRL does and ignore the positive role they've played over the years. (Case in point, remember when you could actually talk to ARRL officials/employees in forums several years ago? Not anymore. The jerks drove them away.)
Looking at just eham or other ham forums, I would agree with your statement above. However, eham and other Internet forums just don't accurately represent all of amateur radio. Nearly all of the hams I know personally or meet on the air don't even read forums.
You may be right on this particular proposal being unpopular with ARRL members. (I'm neutral myself at this point but want to study it more.) But I wouldn't make any assumptions based on what you see in forums.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Whomever the person is that's going by "Straightkey", if you're a licensed amateur radio operator, I'll provide you with a response. "
I'm a licensed amateur, so go ahead.
>> You first....Care to put your money where your mouth is??
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You first....Care to put your money where your mouth is??"
You said if I was an amateur you would give me a response. I am and I told you. Apparently you're just trying to antagonize.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K0ZN on March 25, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
STRAIGHTKEY: if you don't have the courage to step out in the open and give your call, you do not have credibility. Period. Annonyminity and credibility are mutually exclusive. There is nothing you can say to change that.
You (and all no-call sign posters) want to operate on a double standard. Clearly, it is your choice not to post your call, but that is also a choice to have reduced credibility.....you can't have it both ways.
73, K0ZN
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by WA3VJB on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sumner himself has admitted that his group's threatened bandwidth Petition lacked majority support among subscribers. Yet his club moved ahead with it anyway.
I posted the following reaction to Sumner's message that preceded by a few days their club's concession posted to the ARRL's website.
Please consider it food for thought ?
~~~~~~~~~~
Well so, we seem to finally have a response from the highest-paid, unelected staffer of the club in Newington. If the information quoted here is truly from Sumner, he is acknowledging the strong and longstanding opposition to his group's threatened bandwidth scheme.
Isn't that nice?
He has instantly created a problem for the ARRL in its dealings with federal regulators, since there is now a huge discrepency against what the League's lawyer told the FCC last year.
In a Reply Comment to the hundreds of Opposition comments from the greater Amateur community, the League's hired attorney Chris Imlay tried to refute this negative response by essentially ignoring it. For example, while acknowledging the strong numerical turnout and characterizing it as a good thing, he failed to note the turnout doomed his group's proposal in just about any form.
It is disingenuous to try to "salvage" some portion of that proposal today, hoping to squeak by with a fractional version of it that escaped the opposition expressed by active, interested licensees.
The proper course, especially for a putative "national association," would be to withdraw this fractured, poorly-written, misguided Petition, accept defeat in the court of public opinion, and start over again.
Withdrawal would serve the top priority to "salvage" some kind of credibility with constituents, many of whom need assurance that [i]next time[/i] there will be an open, interactive process that directly involves them.
I commend to you the comments of Brian, K3VR, who correctly observes
[quote]
There's no need in the modern world for delegates, representatives, ad-hoc committees, section managers, secret handshakes, initiation rites, or the kind of ham electoral college the league represents.
[/quote]
But if the ARRL wishes to restore its influence with its potential subscribers and the FCC, here's a specific message to Sumner and Rinaldo (ringleaders of the bandwidth scheme):
In your time remaining with the group, the next time you get a Big Idea, first try to build support, don't hand it to us to react to. If we don't like a proposal, don't patronize your critics by ignoring them and/or telling them they are wrong. That is not leadership on a difficult or controversial change. YOU may be the one who's wrong.
As seen in this instance, you will get spanked, humiliated and shoved out of the way, and the cost of your arrogance will be far higher than if you stayed true to the historic principles on which your group was founded.
I challenge either or both of you two to respond here, in a public and unsuppressed forum, with summary remarks to any and all of the people you think deserve your consideration from here on. It's supposed to be reciprocal, remember ?
You need to earn our attention if you expect us to support you. We all understand why you may fear directly exposing yourselves to our opinions. You're not in the habit of doing so, that's for sure, but it's an honest expectation, and not really a lot for us to ask.
Paul/VJB
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W8JI on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm all for regulation by bandwidth, and bandwidth by frequency segment. It's about time someone is trying to move amateur radio forward and establish reasonable technical standards and limits on how wide people can be.
I expect people will invent all sorts of creative tales about how impossible it is to know bandwidth, how it will hurt their favorite mode, and other untrue nonsense invented to whip people into a frenzy.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Annonyminity and credibility are mutually exclusive"
Empirical evidence quickly disproves that. There are people in forums with callsigns making outlandish claims with no evidence that are obviously manufactured. The "you don't have a callsign" tactic is usually used by those who want to antagonize or just not address the issues being raised by the anonymous poster. These same people usually don't have a problem when an anonymous poster agrees with their point of view. If they agree with eham groupthink, credibility is instant.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits it failed
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"You come from San Diego, but you now reside in the Tampa-St. Pete area. I'll do you a favor for now. For now, I won't divulge your callsign."
Please, don't do me any favors. Tell the world what my callsign is. You have no way to prove who I am and I not going to give my call, so it's rather pointless.
I think your post above is way off base. I asked you some questions before and your "friend" Urbangorilla came out of nowhere and attacked me. Now you claim I flame you. That's hardly the case. I suggest you go back and review previous conversations we had. If you want to post your opinions in public and not be asked questions, go create your own blog. Claiming you've been flamed isn't a strong discussion tactic. After your "League Lackey" diatribe didn't get a response from me several days ago in another article, you're attacking me here.
It's OK for you to have an opinion on something, but it's not right to make up your own facts. You can disagree with the ARRL, but slandering just isn't right. I have no problem with someone if they disagree with the ARRL and has a RATIONAL argument. You epitomize the ARRL Basher. You can't stick to the facts, you have to go on these bashing tangents that aren't provable and really detract from any real argument you have.
"I wised up in 2004 when the ARRL submitted their license give-away proposal to the FCC without consulting the membership"
But looking at your profile you were one of those who benefitted from the previous "license give-away". You're a 5 WPM Extra. Talk about hypocrisy. I don't have anything against 5 WPM Extras, or 0 WPM Extras for that matter. But I do when they claim a licensing change is a give-away.
"I sincerely wonder if there's anything in it for you ($ green $) from the ARRL. "
Yes, I'm paid by the ARRL to argue with angry ex-members who hate the ARRL. That sounds like a real wise use of funds. If you're going to make a statement with a question at least make it something somewhat believable.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think regulation by bandwidth has its merits. It would allow for some experimentation in the UHF/microwave bands with some modern data modes in what is little used frequency space. I would like to see some 200 Hz only space at the bottom of each HF band. It seems like RTTY has been creeping lower and lower in the bands during contests. It would be nice to push RTTY up higher in the band. CW could use more protection than less.
Someone earlier mentioned about 100 Khz bandwidth being allowed in repeater bands. That's true, however I would think it should be possible to find open space in many areas. It might be difficult in metro areas. Some limitations may be in order with 100 khz signals to lessen the possibility of interference or to aid in identification.
I don't see the proposal as the disaster it's made out to be. Could the ARRL have communicated better? Certainly.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
You said if I was an amateur you would give me a response. I am and I told you. Apparently you're just trying to antagonize.
>> No, I'm not trying to antagonize you in any way. I merely asked a simple question, anotherwords asking you to prove who you say you are by posting your call sign within your posts.
Licensed amateur radio operators have a call sign and have have a certain amount of credibility on this forum when it comes to issues affecting the amateur service.
So far, you only have a CB handle.
Without a call, why would anyone take you seriously, especially when it comes to amateur licensing and FCC rules.
WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I am OPPOSED to regulation by bandwidth and bandwidth by frequency segment - and neither is 99% of the U.S. amateur community.
We currently have a system that works - albeit far from perfect - but it works the majority of the time. But when automatically controlled stations running proprietary hardware start breaking the rules, either on purpose or inadvertently, how are other hams who don't have access to proprietary hardware supposed to deal with the issue? The FCC would rather that we police ourselves whenever possible, but that won't work here when a $1300 piece of licensed hardware is required to challenge the offending operator.
Today, the amateur HF bands have a type of "interoperability" built in, where someone operating on SSB can hear a station working CW or AM and can communicate with them if required and vice versa. The exception is stations running RTTY or digital modes, and have specific frequencies for operation.
* * * Can anyone imagine PACTOR III stations co-existing with stations running SSB? That's exactly what the ARRL is intimating and RM-11306 is just the first step in the process. (If not the Phone band, they will go after more of the CW band to start and we all know what CW operators think about that.)
The amateur community is demonstrating they are not going to be blind-sided by weasel-worded proposals crafted by the ARRL and others who do their lobbying. (we seem to be ID'ing more of these "amateur lobbyists" with every post.)
Going by the comments submitted thus far on the FCC ECFS, it's crystal-clear that hams OPPOSE RM-11306 and the select minority proponents of WinLink and an amateur email service running rip-shod through our bands.
The MAJORITY WILL CONTINUE TO OPPOSE the ARRL when they are CLEARLY NOT representing the majority of amateurs.
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Sorry, first sentence should read ....
"I am OPPOSED to regulation by bandwidth and bandwidth by frequency segment as proposed in RM-11306 - as is 99% of the U.S. amateur community.
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"No, I'm not trying to antagonize you in any way. I merely asked a simple question, anotherwords asking you to prove who you say you are by posting your call sign within your posts. "
I wouldn't ask you to provide your social security number in order to comment about social security issues or determine your credibility. My callsign is irrelevant to the discussion here and much like you wouldn't want to post your SS number here, I don't want to post my call.
If I post my callsign, I have no way to prove I'm actually that licensee, just like I have no way of authenticating you as the licensee of the callsign you're posting with here. If you don't feel comfortable responding to non-callsign usernames, then don't respond to my messages. You've got all the identifying information you're going to get. I think the CB handle comments you made twice are unnecessary.
"Without a call, why would anyone take you seriously, especially when it comes to amateur licensing and FCC rules."
This isn't a court of law, it's an Internet forum. My credibility is in my words. I have an opinion on the issues and have as much right to post them here as you or anyone else, provided I stay within certain guidelines like anyone else here. Whoever wants to take me seriously can. Efforts to discredit me through questioning my identity rather than questioning the points I bring up is rather weak.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Sumner himself has admitted that his group's threatened bandwidth Petition lacked majority support among subscribers".
Not surprising.
arrl doesn't care what its membership thinks. arrl knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it. Now, sit down, shut up and send in your money!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by AD6WL on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>>>by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
It seems like RTTY has been creeping lower and lower in the bands during contests. It would be nice to push RTTY up higher in the band. CW could use more protection than less. <<<<<<
Where else can the RTTY ops go but down? RTTY ops have lost band space in the recent decision by the FCC. This is causing some friction between RTTY ops and CW ops; not to mention other digital mode ops. This is especially evident during contest weekends where the CW and Digital Op are trying to share a very limited band space. All the while the phone ops are enjoying more space and operating with wider signals.
73, Jim
AD6WL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This isn't a court of law, it's an Internet forum. My credibility is in my words.
Efforts to discredit me through questioning my identity rather than questioning the points I bring up is rather weak.
>> Look back at my posts. I never said it was a court of law and haven't demanded anything. As well, I've never attempted to discredit you....you brought that on yourself.
I made reference to CB radio because CB'ers also hold back their real name and location so there's a similarity here. If you really are a licensed ham, your name address and exact location is part of the public record just like everyone else. How do you hide when you're on the air??
The difference between you and guys like me who give out their call sign is you obviously have a very good idea that your posts are going to met with controversy, and don't or can't stand up to your detractors - otherwise why would you hide behind a "handle"??
Knowing that, I won't give a "handle" the time of day because you want total impunity regardless of what you say, so forget it. I'm actually on overtime with you now....
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K1DA on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
And the League can only defend itself with people who don't have the whatevers necessary to give a call, if they have one, that is.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K1DA on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
In fact, the more I consider it, here we have an
organization which operates in a democacy, claims to
BE a democracy, and yet is so far out of touch with membership that it must send out anonymous speakers to defend itself. That in itself is bogus and intellectually bankrupt. It is like something out of the middle ages, hooded "League defenders". Summner, why don't you get your a.. out hear and discuss this on the record instead of taking cheap shots from the magazine and using unidentified surrogates in your place? What's the doughboy afraid of?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I am OPPOSED to regulation by bandwidth and bandwidth by frequency segment - and neither is 99% of the U.S. amateur community. "
How have you identified the 99% that oppose it? Scientific survey or just an assumption?
"But when automatically controlled stations running proprietary hardware start breaking the rules, either on purpose or inadvertently, how are other hams who don't have access to proprietary hardware supposed to deal with the issue?"
What does this have to do with regulation by bandwidth proposal? If they are breaking the rules, they are breaking the rules, regardless of how subbands are regulated. With the proposal, the automatic station subband isn't changing, if that's what you're getting at.
"Can anyone imagine PACTOR III stations co-existing with stations running SSB? That's exactly what the ARRL is intimating and RM-11306 is just the first step in the process. (If not the Phone band, they will go after more of the CW band to start and we all know what CW operators think about that.) "
You're morphing this proposal into something it's not, and then attacking your morphed proposal. PACTOR III can go all over the CW/data band right now.
"Going by the comments submitted thus far on the FCC ECFS, it's crystal-clear that hams OPPOSE RM-11306 and the select minority proponents of WinLink and an amateur email service running rip-shod through our bands."
I don't run Winlink and I think the proposal is OK. I think you're just linking it to Winlink because most people here dislike Winlink. You'll have more of an effect if you call them "email robots". It sounds scarier.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Where else can the RTTY ops go but down?"
It's a valid question, but often there seems to be alot of space above where RTTY is operating. The last RTTY contest, I saw RTTY as low as 7028. If I recall correctly, the cw/data band was empty from 7080 up (although this might have been due to alot of Region 1 contesters). I agree with you on 80m, it's crunched there. In any case, it's more important for RTTY ops to leave some room. Or we can enforce it with bandwidth regulation but it would be better to keep things voluntary.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
StraightKey,
I never indicated that the aforementioned statement was based upon absolute quantifiable data, such as that which you would expect to find within an IEEE White Paper. Yet, I conceded it was based solely upon the amount of opposing opinions and statements found in these forums and groups versus that of praising opinions and comments. If I were to take on the insurmountable task of conducting a “scientific survey” of the ARRL membership regarding the latest filings on RM-11306, I would first need the mailing address of all the members. You would have to poll all members in order for the data to be truly creditable, unless you don’t mind defending the usage of statistical math to generate data on such a controversial matter. Although, I would prefer to see a forum perform such a survey on their website. In doing that we could view a good data point for the Amateur Community as a whole, not just the ARRL membership. Remember, there are more independent Amateur Operators within the community than there are ARRL members.
You indicated that “I think we've seen many of those who agree with ARRL policies most of the time (not all) abandon forums.”. I agree, and also submit that the same is true for those who have become disenchanted with the ARRL policies. I would suspect that there is a large amount of Amateurs who fit that category whom have abandon such forums as well; which might be somewhat of an underlying clue as to the year over year decline in ARRL membership. So I submit to you that what we are left with in these forums, in terms of ARRL membership, is a mix of the two strongly vocal categories of Amateurs who feel that their voice does mean something and may make a difference, however colossal or slight. These would be your typical staunch pro ARRL members and the infamous ARRL bashers who strongly present their stance regardless of the topic at hand. Then there are the neutrals that hold voice until it is really needed. They seem to be more level headed, letting the system work the issues, only using their voice if it doesn’t look like the decision is going to swing towards what is beneficial for the bigger picture.
I am not what you would call an ARRL basher, nor am I a staunch supporter regardless of the topic at hand. I guess you could say that I too am basically neutral; I do see and recognize the positive aspects that the ARRL has brought to the table over the years. However, I am upset over the current issue of the ARRL conducting an ex-Parte meeting with the FCC and subsequent Erratum filing in an attempt to amend and pass material that was already overwhelmingly opposed by the Amateur Community during the first round. This kind of action from an organization that is supposed to represent the interests of the majority does not bode well with me. And after reading the latest round of comments on the FCC ECFS, it appears that it does not bode well with the majority of the Amateur Community either; no truly praising comments as of yet. Unfortunately, and I truly mean that, it appears as though the ARRL may suffer a damaging blow to its current credibility within the Amateur Community due to their recent actions, regardless of whether such a blow is justifiable or unwarranted; just my personal observation. Such is politics, never upset the masses if you wish to stay in office, much less keep an organization healthy.
It is my opinion that their damage control efforts should include a withdrawal of RM-11306. The recent ex-Parte meeting and subsequent Erratum filing has distorted and created unwavering confusion regarding the true goal of the content. They should re-think what it is that they are really trying to do, accurately communicate their goal to their membership as a WHOLE, and solicit their comments/help as a WHOLE. The ARRL has the structure in place to do this, and the logistical support to accomplish it. Once a truly well thought out and majority approved model has been defined, document it within a petition to be filed with the FCC. Wouldn’t it be nice to see approving comments in the ECFS for such an RM out number the opposing for a change?
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"and yet is so far out of touch with membership that it must send out anonymous speakers to defend itself"
I don't represent the League, I represent myself.
"Summner, why don't you get your a.. out hear and discuss this on the record instead of taking cheap shots from the magazine and using unidentified surrogates in your place? What's the doughboy afraid of? "
The Newington office's phone number is published. I'm sure you could give him a call, although you may not want to start the conversation by addressing him as "doughboy". :-)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Remember, there are more independent Amateur Operators within the community than there are ARRL members."
I agree with what you're basically saying. But on this particular topic, I think you're going to find the majority of hams that aren't ARRL members and don't frequent forums quite neutral on the proposal.
"I would suspect that there is a large amount of Amateurs who fit that category whom have abandon such forums as well; which might be somewhat of an underlying clue as to the year over year decline in ARRL membership."
Would you happen to know the percentage of decline? I suppose I could look through their annual reports, though I don't have the motivation tonight. I'm curious. However I can't imagine it's significant enough to cause a decline in forum participation.
"I am not what you would call an ARRL basher, nor am I a staunch supporter regardless of the topic at hand. I guess you could say that I too am basically neutral; I do see and recognize the positive aspects that the ARRL has brought to the table over the years."
I'm in the same boat. I've disagreed with ARRL. I had a rather heated phone discussion with the past president over an issue. I also discussed with him an issue that we had very close views on before that. ARRL is far from perfect, but it's the best advocate we have. When you talk with these people one on one, you find they pay the bills, walk the dog, take out the trash, and occasionally work some DX on CW just like you and I do. It's the outright bashing that bothers me. It's transformed what could be a useful tool (forums)for recruiting new people into a garbage dump. It's not limited to ARRL, though. We have bashers at the drop of a hat for most any topic here. People who are not ARRL members and post here day in and day out with corruption theories and outrageous garbage aren't helping to solve the problem.
"This kind of action from an organization that is supposed to represent the interests of the majority does not bode well with me. And after reading the latest round of comments on the FCC ECFS, it appears that it does not bode well with the majority of the Amateur Community either; no truly praising comments as of yet."
The "Email Robots" campaign didn't help much :-) It mobilized opposing forces quite rapidly. Those who approve of the measure are less likely to be motivated to file comments. This isn't a hot button topic to people like CW testing was. Both sides of that debate were adament and were motivated to file commments.
"Wouldn’t it be nice to see approving comments in the ECFS for such an RM out number the opposing for a change? "
I agree :-)
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
AD6WL, W5CUL, and WA1RNE. Please do not reply to STRAIGHTKEY. You are all egging him on and giving him satisfaction. He is a cber and its best to ignore him. The gal/guy continues to be obsessed with this thing with these diatribe posts.
|
| |
|
RE: NO HF BANDWIDTH LIMIT PRESENTLY EXISTS
|
|
|
by KQ6XA on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
There is no bandwidth limit for DATA/RTTY transmissions on HF in USA.
Let me say that again...
There is no bandwidth limit for DATA on HF.
Zip.
Nada.
None.
Presently, an ham operator may transmit 10kHz or 25kHz or 50kHz bandwidth data signals if they like, anywhere in the CW/RTTY subbands on HF.
The ARRL now proposes a new 3kHz limit.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 26, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
StraightKey,
It is getting late, and I am definitely getting tired. So I will try and make this next reply short and sweet ;-)
“But on this particular topic, I think you're going to find the majority of hams that aren't ARRL members and don't frequent forums quite neutral on the proposal.”
I understand what you are saying, and I can not dispel nor absolutely agree with what you are saying. That was one of the reasons why I dropped the hint of a “forum” posting such a survey on their website in my last reply. Only then could one actually obtain a data point that could definitively be spoken to for the community as a whole.
“Would you happen to know the percentage of decline?”
This data was derived from the ARRL annual reports posted on their website. From 1999 to 2000 there was a 2.997% increase in membership. From 2000 to 2001 there was a 3.645% decrease in membership. From 2001 to 2002 there was a 2.492% decrease in membership. Year over year, from 2003 to 2005, there has been a steady decline of 1.755% averaged over that 3 year period.
“I'm in the same boat.”
Welcome aboard…<handshake>.
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AB0WR on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
KQ6XA:There is no bandwidth limit for DATA/RTTY transmissions on HF in USA.
Let me say that again...
There is no bandwidth limit for DATA on HF.
Zip.
Nada.
None.
Presently, an ham operator may transmit 10kHz or 25kHz or 50kHz bandwidth data signals if they like, anywhere in the CW/RTTY subbands on HF.
The ARRL now proposes a new 3kHz limit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bonnie,
Don't you ever tire of posting your scofflaw views in these forums?
You seem hell-bent on dragging everyone down to perdition along with you.
Here is what Part 97 has to say about emission standards on HF:
.......................................................
Part 97.307
(f) The following standards and limitations apply to transmissions on the frequencies specified in Sec. 97.305(c) of this part.
(1) No angle-modulated emission may have a modulation index greater than 1 at the highest modulation frequency.
(2) No non-phone emission shall exceed the bandwidth of a communications quality phone emission of the same modulation type. The total bandwidth of an independent sideband emission (having B as the first symbol), or a multiplexed image and phone emission, shall not exceed that of a communications quality A3E emission.
(3) Only a RTTY or data emission using a specified digital code listed in Sec. 97.309(a) of this part may be transmitted. The symbol rate must not exceed 300 bauds, or for frequency-shift keying, the frequency shift between mark and space must not exceed 1 kHz.
.............................................................
I would recommend everyone study Paragraph (f)(2) very closely. Since almost all current "advanced" digital modes use a SSB modulation type (leading emission designator letter of J), you are limited to the same bandwidth as a SSB voice transmission. Now, you can argue what the bandwidth of a legal SSB voice transmission should be but the limit still applies to non-voice transmissions.
Paragraph (f)(3) also gives us some guidance as to what the FCC thinks a typical data bandwidth should be. A 300baud, 1khz shift FSK signal will be about 1.5khz wide. Although the rule has not been updated to take into consideration newer modes that doesn't mean it can't be used as a guide.
Using Bonnie's logic, Spread Spectrum techniques, which can be VERY wide and which are legitimate data transmissions, would be legal on all the HF bands. Yet the FCC has restricted them to being on 70cm and above.
So I would caution everyone that, before believing what the recognized scofflaw Bonnie tries to post as fact, they need to study the issue and come to their own conclusions as to what the FCC considers to be an allowable bandwidth for data transmissions on HF.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: NO HF BANDWIDTH LIMIT PRESENTLY EXISTS
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
>Presently, an ham operator may transmit 10kHz or 25kHz or 50kHz bandwidth data signals if they like, anywhere in the CW/RTTY subbands on HF
Bonnie, this is wrong. (I'll echo AB0WR) The FCC limits the baud rate and the frequency shift which in turn limits the bandwidth. The ARRL proposal throws out the baud/freq shift limit in favor of a bandwidth limit. In my opinion this is better since if you've got the signal to noise ratio to achieve a higher symbol rate within the same bandwidth, you can do it.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Please do not reply to STRAIGHTKEY"
Why must you slander me as being a CBer in an effort to discredit me? To label me a CBer is totally ignoring everything I'm posting. Of course, it's easier to whip people into a frenzy if they think a CBer is in their midst.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5CUL, thanks for the ARRL numbers. That's good to know.
73
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL backpedals, admits defeat
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
by N4DSP on March 26, 2007
AD6WL, W5CUL, and WA1RNE. Please do not reply to STRAIGHTKEY. You are all egging him on and giving him satisfaction. He is a cber and its best to ignore him. The gal/guy continues to be obsessed with this thing with these diatribe posts.
>>> Agreed. .........
....WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K5UJ on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<There is no bandwidth limit for DATA/RTTY transmissions on HF in USA. Let me say that again...There is no bandwidth limit for DATA on HF. Zip. Nada. None. Presently, an [sic] ham operator may transmit 10kHz or 25kHz or 50kHz bandwidth data signals if they like, anywhere in the CW/RTTY subbands on HF.>>>
Here's a question: Is this currently being done? Anyone txing data 10 25 or 50 khz wide below 6 m.? If not, then why is this a problem? Why are we manufacturing problems? Why are we trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? What happened to "It's not a problem until it's a problem?" What's up with the fear? What are we afraid of? What's up with this paranoid mentality that thinks somewhere, some day, someone might ooooh, be wiiide, and when that happens, we'll all be powerless to deal with it so we have to do something _now_. Let's pretend someone is 10 KHz wide data now. On 75 meters. In the middle of the day when there are maybe 5 qsos on the whole band. So what. Why the assumption that the worst possible thing will happen? Lot's of people have Ferraris and Lamborghinis in the U.S. but they don't drive them at 150 mph all the time. Even back when Montana didn't have a speed limit they didn't. And we don't ban them from this country. And by the way, any bandwidth limit will only apply to the U.S. It's not like it's going to fix the world regardless of the ARRL's apparent self-image of being some kind of arbiter of world hamdom. The control freak aspects of this are so bizarre I'm about to believe Straightkey is really Dave Sumner.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
W5CUL writes:
"From 2000 to 2001 there was a 3.645% decrease in membership.
From 2001 to 2002 there was a 2.492% decrease in membership.
Year over year, from 2003 to 2005, there has been a steady decline of 1.755% averaged over that 3 year period".
If accurate, its no surprise. arrl's arrogant attitude that it "knows what is best for you, even if you are too stupid to know it" has been taking its toll. You simply cannot act against the wishes of large portions of your membership and expect people to continue to support you.
DA!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AB0WR on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
<<<There is no bandwidth limit for DATA/RTTY transmissions on HF in USA. Let me say that again...There is no bandwidth limit for DATA on HF. Zip. Nada. None. Presently, an [sic] ham operator may transmit 10kHz or 25kHz or 50kHz bandwidth data signals if they like, anywhere in the CW/RTTY subbands on HF.>>>
k5uj:<<<<Here's a question: Is this currently being done? Anyone txing data 10 25 or 50 khz wide below 6 m.? If not, then why is this a problem? Why are we manufacturing problems? Why are we trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist? What happened to "It's not a problem until it's a problem?" What's up with the fear? What are we afraid of? What's up with this paranoid mentality that thinks somewhere, some day, someone might ooooh, be wiiide, and when that happens, we'll all be powerless to deal with it so we have to do something _now_. Let's pretend someone is 10 KHz wide data now. On 75 meters. In the middle of the day when there are maybe 5 qsos on the whole band. So what. Why the assumption that the worst possible thing will happen?>>
What reason do you suppose there is for there being only 5 conversations on 75 meters in the middle of the day?
Do you suppose that same reason will have any impact on the operational methods of those wishing to use 10khz, 15khz, or even 100khz wide data signals?
My guess is that the worst possible thing *WILL* happen. Those people wanting to use data signals of those bandwidths will want to be on the air at the same time others using the same mode will be on the air(i.e. after getting home from work) and will want to operate when the band provides the best signal to noise ratio's (i.e. in the evenings).
This is exactly when everyone else will be using the 75m band.
Exactly what reasons do you have for supposing the worst will *NOT* happen? Wishful thinking perhaps?
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
STRAIGHTKEY, I would gladly test under the old criteria prior to 2/15/2000. At present, I'd have no problem passing a 13 wpm code exam. With my background in radio and electronics, I guess I'd hold an Advanced class license. I have publicly admitted that I don't feel as though I earned my Extra. I still stand on that. Don't make me out to be one who took a free ride. I'd even have no problem testing for my amateur license down at the FCC field office, which I did for my Second Class Phone and the Radar Endorsement exams in 11/81 and 1/82.
You follow the ARRL party line on all issues. That's why I call you a "League Lackey." You are nothing but a blind follower and a yes man of the ARRL.
Why don't you be a man and post with your callsign instead of hiding behind an alias like a chicken? I'm not going to bother to debate or dialog with you anymore unless you can sign your posts with a valid amateur callsign, one that belongs to you.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I shouldn't have to defend myself and my opinions against some anonymous chicken who takes pot shots from behind an invisible shield. I'm not going to reply to anymore anonymous posts from those who refuse to stand on their posts with an identifiable callsign. And don't compare me with Urbanguerilla. He's another one that refuses to identify himself. Just because he is also pro-code and anti-League doesn't mean he's my friend. I know nothing about anyone who refuses to identify himself. For all I know, Urban may be a she.
On the matter of this thread, the bottom line is the vast majority of hams want nothing to do with the League's bandwidth proposal. I am also opposed to it 100%.
AG4RQ
Proud to be an ex-ARRL member
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by STRAIGHTKEY on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"STRAIGHTKEY, I would gladly test under the old criteria prior to 2/15/2000. At present, I'd have no problem passing a 13 wpm code exam. With my background in radio and electronics, I guess I'd hold an Advanced class license. I have publicly admitted that I don't feel as though I earned my Extra. I still stand on that. Don't make me out to be one who took a free ride."
That's fine if you're not comfortable with the tests you took. That's your choice and I don't consider you as someone who took a free ride (like many others who might). But don't lessen others who came in under tests that they had no choice in determining either.
"You follow the ARRL party line on all issues. That's why I call you a "League Lackey." You are nothing but a blind follower and a yes man of the ARRL. "
You don't know me, so you have no clue as to what I do or don't support with the ARRL. I have disagreed with ARRL positions in the past. I didn't support their 5 WPM test for Extras position on the CW testing NPRM. There's other instances I won't waste my time going in to. But somehow I support one ARRL position in an arguably neutral fashion and I'm labeled a "League Lackey" by you. It's rather childish.
"Why don't you be a man and post with your callsign instead of hiding behind an alias like a chicken? I'm not going to bother to debate or dialog with you anymore unless you can sign your posts with a valid amateur callsign, one that belongs to you. "
If I agreed with the majority here on this topic, no one would care if I was anonymous. It's pointless for me to give a callsign as you have no way of confirming it as being mine.
"And don't compare me with Urbanguerilla. He's another one that refuses to identify himself"
You didn't have a problem with him or his anonymity when he came to your defense in another forum.
"I'm not going to reply to anymore anonymous posts "
Good. It's about time we stop this childish "what's your call?", "are you a CBer?", "ignore the him, we disagree with him and he's anonymous" junk that is clogging this forum. It's time we get back to discussing the ARRL proposal.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W8JI on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Once again I see we have a group of people getting whipped up into a frenzy over nothing by people who either have not read the proposal or who are unable to understand what they read.
The new proposal by the ARRL limits bandwidth of some new digital modes, and won't cause the 20-50 TOTAL WinLink hubs to do anything at all like the Chicken Littles of the world are cliaming.
It would be nice if people did some actual research before listening to all the alarmists that are posting things that just are not true at all.
I guess this is a result of the slow loss of understanding communications technology, or trying to hold amateur radio to technical standards developed when there were 50,000 Hams using crappy drifty wide AM rigs and using L/C filters in receivers that would drift 1kHz a minute from a cold start.
73 Tom
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W8JI on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Let's dispell one Chiocken Little myth...the one about robots taking over the whole band.
Here is a link to the TOTAL number of hub staions on the air and the frequencies:
http://www.winlink.org/stations.htm
or read this page
http://www.winlink.org
Give me a break Chicken Little! There are a total of about 40 or 50 winlink robots.
The real threat is all the people with soundcards and other devices connected to microphone inputs who know how to set their radios to wide bandwidth, all the CB amplifiers sold as "Ham radio" 400 W 12 volt transistor bricks, and all the people who know how to peak radios up to 150W PEP by turning screws.
It would be much more productive if people planned ahead by looking at what people are doing that actually COULD explode into a problem.
Winklink isn't it at all, because they wouldn't want to place a robot where it would be subject to QRM. There also aren't very many of them. Since 2000 they have established only a few dozen hub stations.
On the other hand there are thousand and thousands of people who do naughty things by getting into hidden menus or tweaking internal controls, and many hundreds of class C performance CB amps sold as 1.8-30MHz "linears".
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Those who waited 15 years until the code test was eliminated DID have a choice. New licensees don't have a choice. IMO, the FCC shouldn't have lowered the code requirement for General and Extra to 5 wpm. Dropping it altogether was an even bigger mistake. As for me, I regret a lot of things. I shouldn't have waited until 1995 to enter the hobby as a NCT. I should have entered the hobby as a Novice back in 1978 when I first wanted amateur radio. It's all water under the bridge. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with an anonymous phantom over something I have no control over (elimination of the 5 wpm code test a month ago). I fought the change. I lost. There are much more important things that need my attention than arguing on an eHam thread, which is why I haven't been on eHam for the last couple of days. Find someone else to argue with. Have a great life. 73
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
CrookedFork dribbled: "...you have no clue as to what I do or don't support with the ARRL"
Hey CF,
It seems as though others here in this thread have your number like I have over wireless vs BPL. All anyone has to do is read your endless drivel on this site alone & could easily derive you are CLEARLY an idealogical ARRL lackey... A majority of the comments here go against your beloved ARRL & this is mainly because there are no forums at ARRL.org for "members". The ARRL only wishes there was no ability to post such "ugliness" on behalf of the other 80%+ who are not lackies & the balance of "members" who are coming around to seeing things outside that feckless Newington prism...
Now the very fact you are a coward who tries to appear as some "unbiased expert" on such things like bandwidth & wireless broadband does not absolve you from the core issue. That issue is that if you were really to be taken seriously & appear credible, you'd be a proud enough man to identify yourself as we all do here out of common courtesy toward each other. You can't & won't be considered a "peer" if you are wearing a ski mask to a dinner party... This is not a costume party or a drag queen masquerade ball... As I said in the BPL thread, you can't state an identity you yourself can't figure out. It is called character. Something you really lack!
Clearly, someone knows who you are. I'd love to know, so please write me at wifidx@gmail.com cause I want to QSL CrookedFork 100%
Known 4 Revealing Amateur Frauds
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 27, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom (W8JI),
I can say that I did my research prior to making any posts.
You indicated “The new proposal by the ARRL limits bandwidth of some new digital modes, and won't cause the 20-50 TOTAL WinLink hubs to do anything at all like the Chicken Little’s of the world are claiming.” I agree, part of the RM-11306 Appendix A amendment filed on 22 March does limit “RTTY and Data” to 3Khz of transmission bandwidth. And this should be done, if it is not limited already; I need to re-read that portion of the current Part 97. This limitation can be seen in Section 97.307 (f) (3) “The bandwidth of a RTTY or data emission must not exceed 3 kHz.” And no, I do not think these Winlink/Pactor III hubs are going to “take over the band”. However, from my understanding of the RM-11306 Appendix A amendment, there is some truth to the talk about ARRL’s requests for data emissions having total “access” to the traditional phone-emission section of the 10M band. Which does mean you will have autonomous/semi-autonomous data emission systems attempting to co-exist with phone emissions. This seems to be one of the points of contention with a lot of the vocal Amateur Operators within the Community. A lot of them are saying they would rather have it segregated by mode, thus no possible interference issues from either side.
So how is the ARRL proposing this? The amendment asks that the 10M band be segregated by transmission bandwidth, as opposed to mode of operation. If you look at the chart in amended Section 97.305 (f), you will see that 28.120 – 29.0Mhz is authorized to support modes with transmission bandwidths not to exceed 3Khz. This would include “RTTY and Data” emissions as defined by Section 97.307 (f) (3) per the amendment. The same can be seen in a small portion of the 6M band, and for pretty much the whole 2M band. Remember, the band is segregated by maximum bandwidth of emission, which means that a 3Khz bandwidth data emission would be authorized from 144.1Mhz to 148Mhz.
So why is the ARRL so adamant in pushing band segregation by transmission bandwidth? Some would say that in order to build a truly robust nationwide data network topology using data nodes that are allotted 3Khz of bandwidth transmission, you would need a sizeable chunk of spectrum. You say 20 - 50 nodes are operational now. Let’s say there are 50 independent nodes. One would need 150Khz of spectrum in order to independently operate each of those nodes; this is not taking into account any guard band that may be needed between nodes if they were spectrally placed contiguously. If the segregation of the Amateur Bands by transmission bandwidth were to actually be passed, thus opening up more spectrum to such data transmissions, how many nodes will there be in 1 year from now, or 5 years from now? For those who understand network topologies and how they can grow, that one question, and its possible answer does raise some concerns. For me, I think the win-win situation for both parties is to keep the bands segregated by modes, allotting spectrum on a per band basis for “data” transmissions. How much spectrum and which bands? I leave that up for debate by the Amateur Community as a whole.
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I assume all posters that do not use a ham call are "freebanders" till proven otherwise. Ignore their posts. I do!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W3ULS on March 28, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Tom, the issue is not the actual "regulation by bandwidth" idea. It is the way the ARRL went abouty developing and filing its petition, and then the surreptitious visit to the FCC in February to refine it without so much as a how-do-you-do to the membership.
The ARRL may have a case, but as long as Harrison and Sumner are in charge, it will not be made. Therefore, you can expect a lot of negative reaction (frenzy, if you will.)
However, Canada has a sensible plan for allocating the HF bands, and it's not "regulation by bandwidth." So your view right now is definitely a minority one in North America.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
It’s funny how the more things change; the more they stay the same.
My experiences as the AMSAT-NA President taught me many things about Hams in general. The first is that, by and large, we are basically a cheap bunch and we are also usually reluctant to embrace anything new unless and until it becomes “mainstream”. At that point, our individual WIFFM (“What’s In It For Me?”) factor exceeds our individual monetary and/or other resource availability threshold, which, in turn, forces us to scrape enough resources together to then make the switch to a new way (or new mode) of operating.
Ham Radio has gone through several of these technological upheavals throughout its history as the technology changed, starting with the switch from Spark to CW back in the early 1900s, and then the switch from AM to SSB in the late 1950s.
And, right now, most of us (including yours truly) are heavily invested in “old” HF technology. SSB and CW have now been the mainstream operating modes on HF for over five decades. And when we add it all up, I think most of us would shudder to think of the money we currently have tied up in analog transceivers, amplifiers, antennas, feed lines, tuners, towers, beams and rotators.
I’ve often wondered how much fierce opposition to changing technology in our hobby is coming from our basic curmudgeonly resistance to such change or how much is due to our dread of trying to convince our significant others that we need yet another umpteen thousand or so dollars to “invest” in our “crazy hobby”.
The bottom line here is that, from my AMSAT experiences, and for a variety of other reasons, I’ve found we Hams tend to almost obsessively want what we already have. That is, of course, unless and until everyone else has moved on to something new AND the price for the new technology drops to the point that we can afford (and/or can justify the expense to our spouses) to make the switch, too.
However, from a government standpoint, such obsessive "wanting what we have” does absolutely nothing to encourage advancing the state of the radio art…an endeavor that has always been a big part of Amateur Radio’s charter. It remains as one of the main justifications for our continued fee-free access to literally billions of dollars worth of precious frequency spectrum. Yet, sadly, I don’t think we’ve been “pulling our load” in that department for many years…a fact that is most certainly not lost on our current crop of regulators down at the FCC.
That is, right now, I believe the FCC has (finally!) realized that the ego-stroking “incentive" approach to licensing and band planning their predecessors foisted on the Amateur Service decades ago has now long since outlived its usefulness.
For, not only is incentive licensing based on handing out frequency privileges and operating modes as ego stroking "rewards", it still does so based largely on 1950s-era emission types and mode preferences in our Service… all of which simply stifles creativity and experimentation in new technologies. That's primarily because the bandwidth requirements and emission types for many of these new modes don't easily fit anywhere in the current regulated sub-band allocations for the Amateur Service.
Or, to put it more simply, incentive licensing has led to a regulatory approach that perennially tries to stuff round pegs into square holes.
Unfortunately, one of the other downsides of putting everyone into “regulated pigeon holes” is that such approaches inevitably lead to horrendously poor band usage. Right now, I don’t believe anyone can seriously argue the fact that we have GOBS of room in our bands to accommodate everyone’s interests…including ALL the new digital modes.
The problem is that, because we've become so dependent on doing things under such over-regulation for so long, FAR too many of us are also now paranoid that ANY change in that approach will inevitably lead to “them” interfering with “us” in what we passionately believe is our own, very private piece of the "country club".
Or, to put it another way, because most Hams in the United States have known nothing else but to operate in such over-regulated, license-class-and-mode-based pigeonholes, we tend to view ANY relaxation of the current FCC's stifling regulatory approach to our service as automatically "bad".
So, yeah, change is ALWAYS scary, for a variety of personal and financial reasons. But there will always be those of us who are out in front of (or making) those changes. And, unfortunately, those that do will perennially be locked in mortal combat with those who are just as fiercely battling to keep the status quo the status quo.
But, fortunately, history has shown that the advantage will always go to those advocating change. That's because the only constant in life IS change.
And, eventually “change” always seems to triumph over “status quo”. What's more, and so far at least, Amateur Radio has seen absolutely no exception to this rule...except of course, where layer upon layer of stifling FCC over-regulation has kept that inevitable progress artificially suppressed under arcane approaches to band planning like incentive licensing.
Thankfully, those folks among us who are fiercely clinging to the status quo will have to either adapt to (or embrace) such changes or they’ll find another hobby to get into. Or, failing either, they'll simply die off and the new paradigm will take over once they've all gone the way of the dinosaur.
For, despite all their paranoid protestations to the contrary, Luddites have always been quite unsuccessful at stopping needed progress.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W3ULS on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF:
Keith, calling hams opposed to the ARRL's surrpetitious submissions "Luddites" is no way to further a conversation.
Also, there is a suspicion among some commenters that conflicts of interest exist among the ARRL leadership and the Win/Link organization that have not been disclosed. Suspicions like this, however warranted, are fed by secret "ex parte" meetings that only were exposed because the FCC's rules regarding regulatory proceedings demanded that a report be made about the meeting.
Be it further noted that the materials presented last month to the FCC by the "democratically-controlled" ARRL were prepared in camera. Members had zero input. It's not even clear that board members (other than Harrison) had any role in the preparation of the documents.
It's up to you and the ARRL leadership to make a case for this regulation-by-bandwidth idea. So far, proponents outside the ARRL such as yourself only say the fears of hams opposed to the notion are unwarranted. No facts are offered to support this argument. The ARRL's argument is basically that "father knows best."
From my point of view, if you end up having numerous robot stations broadcasting spontaneously all over the HF bands then, Houston, there's a problem. True, the number of robot stations is small now, but the ARRL's leadership clearly is intent on a significant increase in their number, for whatever private (real) reasons it has. (Its public rationales do not hold water.)
You'll need to find a lot more advocates before this idea flies. Insulting hams who care about this issue but disagree with you is not the way to go about this, I would suggest.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith, KB1SF,
your statements say it all about yourself and not about the hams whom I have met the past 40 years.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by WA1RNE on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Political alliances continue to "taint the waters" and flourish with intensity, even in ham radio.
Isn't it typical that almost anyone who has had some association with the ARRL has this nagging "duty" to agree with their every whim - even when it gives 500,000 other hams indigestion??
Current and past members of the ARRL have to stop feeling so darn guilty just because they once honored an organization that catered to the majority of hams - but now has a clandestine agenda that's royally Pe'ing Off everyone else.
...WA1RNE
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 29, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (W3ULS) wrote: "Keith, calling hams opposed to the ARRL's surreptitious (sic) submissions "Luddites" is no way to further a conversation."
----------------------
John, would you be so kind as to point out exactly where in my recent post I mentioned the ARRL? My comments were meant to highlight what I perceive to be our collective resistance to change…ANY change. They were NOT directed to any one person (or organization) in particular. However, as they say, "If the shoe fits…"
On, and since YOU brought up the ARRL, it would be most interesting to learn how many people pissing and moaning here about what the League is (or isn't) doing "for Amateur Radio" have also never paid a plug nickel to them in dues over the years.
If you aren't a member, then, clearly, you have absolutely NO business complaining about what they do (or don't do) to further our collective interests.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF said:
"If you aren't a member, then, clearly, you have absolutely NO business complaining about what they do (or don't do) to further our collective interests."
________________________________________________________
Here you are clearly mistaken. The ARRL is speaking on behalf of ALL US Amateur Radio Operators. Do you think this legislation if passed will only apply to membership in the ARRL? Being a past president of AMSAT and working with the ARRL in these matters certainly has taken its toll in your ability to distinguish clearly what is at stake here.
On the other hand why on your qrz.com bio do you speak in the 3rd person? It reads like a notice out of the daily obituaries.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W3ULS on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
If you aren't a member, then, clearly, you have absolutely NO business complaining about what they do (or don't do) to further our collective interests.
73,
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
* * *
(Deep sigh). Keith, I are a member!
73,
John, W3ULS
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Key operative phrase: "Our Collective Interests"
The arrogance of ARRL-types is totally unacceptable to many of the 80%+ of licensed people who choose not to be "members".
The fact they are directly affected by the feckless ARRL & its' FCC policy fallacies before the Commission makes it even more imperative that "we" keep "them" in the direct light.
Is it any wonder why people do not like the ARRL or refuse to even accept their existence & their ever-diminshing "influence" over FCC policy & enforcement?
All you have to do is read KB1SF's comments that state we all should just shut up & sing...
I don't think so... Not until I am retired or "done"...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (N4DSP) wrote: "Do you think this legislation if passed will only apply to membership in the ARRL? Being a past president of AMSAT and working with the ARRL in these matters certainly has taken its toll in your ability to distinguish clearly what is at stake here.
On the other hand why on your qrz.com bio do you speak in the 3rd person? It reads like a notice out of the daily obituaries."
--------------------------------
WHAT "legislation"?
Legislation consists of LAWS that lawmakers enact in places like the House and Senate. What is under consideration by the FCC here is a whole new (well…new for the USA) way of REGULATING our Service. That entails things called "regulations", which, while having the force of law because they are the vehicles whereby such laws are implemented, are not nearly as "final" as laws are. That is, regulations can be far more easily changed by competent authority if required..
So, my friend, it appears YOU are the one who is "unable to distinguish what is at stake here" because you can' t even refer to it properly.
And, as expected, the same ever-shrinking (but still highly vocal) crowd is attacking the messenger rather than the message.
Folks, let me once again remind all of you that I'M not the one who is now dragging Ham Radio in the United States kicking and screaming into the 21st Century! Rather, as one poster in another forum put it, it's the FCC that does all the "commanding" in our Service.
And, it would appear that our FCC has (finally!) realized that we (as a Service) are either unwilling (or unable) to move forward technologically on our own. And, because there's no longer any international roadblocks in the way (such as an arcane Morse testing requirements) to stop them, they've decided its now high time to bring our Service in the United States back in line with its original international intent and open it back up to ordinary (that is, "non-electronic professional") people. They apparently believe this will ultimately lead to more growth and therefore, more experimentation in our Service.
But, clearly, what's now got so many of the Luddites in such a tizzy over this latest turn of events is that the blatantly discriminatory Government "filters" and "exclusive" regulated sub-bands they have all been relying on in the United States for so many years to institutionalize their snobbery are, one by one, now going by the wayside as a direct result of these latest FCC decisions.
That's because the US Government has now…officially… debunked ALL of their "keeping the riff-raff out" and "lid filter" arguments and are now well on their way to largely de-regulating our Service so as to bring it back in line with the (far simpler) ITU regulations for Amateur Radio. Returning to a scheme to regulate us by bandwidth (and thereby let we Hams decide what goes where in our bands rather than by regulated sub-bands based on license class and operating mode) is simply the next logical step in that direction.
However, as nobody in any official capacity is now listening to the ever-more paranoid rants from the "sky is falling" crowd, they and their ever-shrinking minority are now down to relying on endless tirades and boorish vitriol in forums like these against those who would advocate such long needed changes in our Service,
But…fortunately…the Luddites aren't getting any traction with that approach, either. Which is simply adding to their overall sense of powerlessness to hang onto the last vestiges of a legally discriminatory, government sponsored licensing system that's been underwriting their exclusive little "country club" for FAR too long!
Oh…and by the way….my bio is written in the standard corporate bio format. However, if that upsets you in some way, then I have a very simple solution to the problem:
DON'T READ IT!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by URBANGORILLA on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
VA3KSF, you are a fricking communist. Why don't you go back to Canada and stay there?
UG
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The mysterious UG wrote: "VA3KSF, you are a fricking communist. Why don't you go back to Canada and stay there?"
----------------------------
Many thanks for your kind words!
It would appear from your most thoughtful response to my recent post that my comments are hitting home.
And, unlike some, at least I'm not ashamed to include my REAL name and REAL call sign in my posts.
Cheers!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"If you aren't a member, then, clearly, you have absolutely NO business complaining about what they do (or don't do) to further our collective interests."
PURE, UNADULTERATED NONSENSE.
When the CHILDISH arrl personally insults the very FCC commissioners that hold sway over MY license and MY priveleges, I WILL VOICE MY OPINIONS.
When the IDIOTIC arrl proposes silly and counterproductive ideas, I WILL VOICE MY OPINIONS.
When the greedy arrl exploits ham radio for its own gain, I WILL VOICE MY OPINION.
WHY IS IT THAT LIBERALS CONSTANTLY TRY TO SILENCE THOSE THAT DISAGREE WITH THEIR AJENDA?
NEWSFLASH: THIS IS STILL THE USA AND STALINIST STYLE "CENSORSHIP" JUST DOES NOT FLY HERE.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith VA3KSF,
Things getting to hot and heavy for you eh!
LOL.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by URBANGORILLA on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"And, unlike some, at least I'm not ashamed to include my REAL name and REAL call sign in my posts.
Cheers!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF"
You must be schizoid. You are the only one signing with 2 callsigns. You got the American one memorizing the question pool. The Canadian one was at the bottom of the box that your Fisher-Price radio came in. The way you want the tests dumbed down, if you get your way it looks like there will be many retards with Fisher-Price radios calling themselves hams.
Maybe we can start the whole CB craze up again, this time with ham radio. Anyone in Hollywood up to making a sequel to "Convoy", this time using ham radios? How about "Smokey and the Bandit"? This one we can call "Keith and the Radio Retards". One license, one test, 3 questions. Is the sky blue? Do fish swim? Is the Pope Catholic?
UG
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (N4DSP) wrote: " Things getting to hot and heavy for you eh!"
----------------------
Quite the contrary, it would appear I'm now quite successfully tearing away all the "what's best for Amateur Radio" crap and exposing it for what it truly is:
Obsessive (if not paranoid) resistance to progress along with some horribly entrenched bigotry.
What fun!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
arrl's silly proposal has now CLEARLY been shown to be detrimental to ham radio. ITS NO LONGER DEBATEABLE. All that remains now are arguments by those die-hard arrl supporters that think arrl walks on water and can do no wrong.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Quite the contrary, it would appear I'm now quite successfully tearing away all the "what's best for Amateur Radio" crap and exposing it for what it truly is:
Obsessive (if not paranoid) resistance to progress along with some horribly entrenched bigotry.
What fun!"
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
_____________________________________________________
Keith,
you are a loon and a troll. You say it in your last sentence above. You have been exposed for what you are.
People like myself are trying to reason with an idiot and it cannot be done. Goodbye and change that idiotic bio on qrz.com about the glories of Keith KB1SF/VA3KSF.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"Obsessive (if not paranoid) resistance to progress along with some horribly entrenched bigotry"
In Keith's world, if you disagree with him, you are a bigot. Typical liberal tactic. Loose an argument on the merits, and then call the winner names.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W5CUL on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Gentleman,
Let's not loose focus here. It is not the winds of change that seems to be causing the consternation, change is inevitable over time. And personally speaking, I see "digital" emissions, whether voice, data, image, or a combination of all three eventually being that future. It is the ARRL proposed model of change and the manner in which they developed and submitted that model to the FCC that is under scrutiny; not necessarily in that order. The model itself (RM-11306) does not bode well for the co-existence of phone/image emissions with that of autonomous/semi-autonomous data emissions. Nor does it truly offer a future for further development. Yet it gives the appearance of having been specifically engineered to allow a specific data protocol to grow and flourish as a national data network. If the argument is that the model was designed to promote future data enhancements and developments, then why does it limit the data emission bandwidth to 3khz? A limitation that appears to fall in line with an already existing data emission's spectral bandwidth, not some future data mode as some would want you to believe. I now think that limiting the bandwidth of a data emission to 3Khz would do more to stifle future enhancements of such emissions, as opposed to providing them the possible breadth to mature; a change from some of my earlier posts. Yes, my mind was open and changed by another amateur's posting on QRZ who brought up a similar point. The caveat would be, as I have always stated, that these emissions need to be segregated into their own sub-band. Again, this would alleviate the strong possibility of interference incurred in a mixed emission environment, while at the same time provide these emissions their own spectrum in which to grow and mature free of interference from other pre-existing modes. Now it should be noted that the reality of this statement may not be the end of the compromise. I see the truly painful compromise, in support of the above suggestion, would be some re-arrangements of the current band plans in order to carve out a suitable size of spectrum for these data emissions. I can accept and work towards that, as long as it is truly used to support future enhancements and developments within the hobby. As I have said before, how much spectrum and which bands, I have no idea. I would like to see the Amateur Community debate that and reach a consensus, as opposed to having it slid under our noses to the FCC.
And by the way, if it is the future that we are striving for, then why did the ARRL coin it as data emission? This seems coincidental with, well, data. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to say digital emissions, thus encompassing digital modes we have yet to dream up?
73,
Mike
W5CUL
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Mike, W5CUL said:
"Let's not loose focus here. It is not the winds of change that seems to be causing the consternation, change is inevitable over time. And personally speaking, I see "digital" emissions, whether voice, data, image, or a combination of all three eventually being that future. It is the ARRL proposed model of change and the manner in which they developed and submitted that model to the FCC that is under scrutiny."
_______________________________________________________
Exactly Mike. Its the way that private radio club in Newington, with our monies and not representing us but their clubs agenda, tried to push this through on a couple of clandestine occasions. As usual the Liberals tried to spin this to another direction which has no relevance whatsoever to the original post. But we are wise to their tactics.
73
john-n4dsp
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by AB0WR on March 30, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
w5cul:
<<Let's not loose focus here. It is not the winds of change that seems to be causing the consternation, change is inevitable over time. And personally speaking, I see "digital" emissions, whether voice, data, image, or a combination of all three eventually being that future.>>
I'll believe that digital is the future for voice when they get cell phone data rates below 12-15kbs for a decent sounding communications channel (not Robbie the Robot voice).
I'm not convinced that's going to happen in our lifetime.
tim ab0wr
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by K4RAF on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
"I'm not convinced that's going to happen in our lifetime."
Some of us are doing alot more than stale, bewildered old ham radio operators are doing. Most of you have no drive as in years past when "we" truly met the goals of the service. Now it seems more of a joke to claim we are "innovators".
The best thing the FCC can do is force more sharing above 900 so someone else can use what you guys refuse to "bother with". 13 year olds are doing alot with wireless & have no interest in a license to talk to old crusts about CW...
I see it everyday for the last 15 years...
K4RAF
wifidx@gmail.com
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Jonathan (W9WHE) wrote: "In Keith's world, if you disagree with him, you are a bigot. Typical liberal tactic. Loose an argument on the merits, and then call the winner names."
--------------
And, dear Jonathon, if anyone happens to disagree with YOU, they're immediately labeled a "Liberal".
All of which begs the question as to why, when YOU happen to "lose" an argument on its "merits" you insist on dragging totally irrelevant political labels into the discussion.
What's even more comical is that your political moniker for me isn't even close. For many years, I've considered myself to be NEITHER a Conservative NOR a Liberal. Rather, my political views these days are more in line with the Libertarians than anyone else.
Oh...and one more thing…your spelling in your latest post is MUCH improved! Bravo!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (N4DSP) wrote: Keith, you are a loon and a troll. You say it in your last sentence above. You have been exposed for what you are. People like myself are trying to reason with an idiot and it cannot be done. Goodbye and change that idiotic bio on qrz.com about the glories of Keith KB1SF/VA3KSF.
--------------------------------
Well, John, you are certainly entitled to your opinions.
However, as far as my bio is concerned, I'd like to think that by highlighting the 10 plus years of time, effort and MONEY I freely donated to AMSA-NA as a member of their Board of Directors (and then later, as their Vice President and President…volunteer effort for which I didn't receive a DIME of payment for my services) would somehow show how ordinary Hams can (and regularly do) give things BACK to our hobby rather than always taking from it.
That is, unlike your own QRZ bio, I've tried to highlight some of my contributions to making our Service BETTER rather than simply bragging to the world how I'd worked 321 countries and was a member of the Honor Roll. (By the way, I've got 250 confirmed, but so far the Honor Roll remains elusive).
So, I'm sorry if my work with AMSAT (and/or my reporting of it) upsets you in some way. But your remarks also clearly indicate who now owns the problem.
Cheers!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
> FCC Announcement
>
>
> It was announced today that Kellogg's and the Federal Communications
> Commission have signed a pact to issue Amateur Radio Licenses on
> specially marked boxes of Corn Flakes. In this unprecedented move the
> FCC believes this will not hurt amateur radio but allow all
> individuals to receive an amateur radio license without having to
> demonstrate any skills with the exception of being able to use a pair
> of scissors to cut out their operating permit from the breakfast
> cereal box.
>
>
> Kellogg's spokesperson commented that they were proud to have been
> selected by the government to be the issuer of licenses for amateur
> radio in the US and hope to soon make an agreement with other cereal
> loving countries. They also expect that will be issuing certificates
> of achievement for DXCF for confirmed contacts with 100 corn flakers.
>
> Following the announcement that new amateur radio licensees will be
> able to operate in the HF spectrum without knowledge of Morse Code,
> the 2- meter handi-talki manufacturers have responded to what they
> view as a threat to their business. Said Hiram Bumble, CEO of
> whatawaste.com, the number one HT maker in the world, "We are not
> pleased at all about the new FCC rule. Our business has depended upon
> the rapid entry of no-code technicians who buy an HT, use it a couple
> of times, and then quit the hobby. Now, with the prospect of HF
> operation, a lot of these techies will forego their HTs."
>
> The HT manufacturers have decided to imitate Kodak's defense against
> electronic photography. They will begin making cardboard HTs that cost
> only $19.99. Once the battery is depleted, they are meant to be tossed
> away. It is hoped that the low price tag will make these disposable
> HTs a more compelling purchase than the more costly HF gear. The HT
> manufacturers all also lobbying the Federal government to adopt
> national CC&Rs which will prevent most people from erecting any sort
> of antenna that is more than one meter in length.
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith, I am just amazed at your lack of comprehension. You just do not get it. But you did reply with this very nice non-attacking reply and I did not expect that so Cheers to you also!
john-n4dsp
__________________________________________________
The Canadian Keith, VA3KSF wrote:
"Well, John, you are certainly entitled to your opinions.
However, as far as my bio is concerned, I'd like to think that by highlighting the 10 plus years of time, effort and MONEY I freely donated to AMSA-NA as a member of their Board of Directors (and then later, as their Vice President and President…volunteer effort for which I didn't receive a DIME of payment for my services) would somehow show how ordinary Hams can (and regularly do) give things BACK to our hobby rather than always taking from it.
That is, unlike your own QRZ bio, I've tried to highlight some of my contributions to making our Service BETTER rather than simply bragging to the world how I'd worked 321 countries and was a member of the Honor Roll. (By the way, I've got 250 confirmed, but so far the Honor Roll remains elusive).
So, I'm sorry if my work with AMSAT (and/or my reporting of it) upsets you in some way. But your remarks also clearly indicate who now owns the problem."
Cheers!
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by URBANGORILLA on March 31, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Arguing with Keith the Canadian is like arguing with a parrot or an echo. You can't win. It keeps talking back. It is also like sinking in quicksand. The more you argue, the deeper you sink. You just can't win. Round and round you go. Square one always seems to be coming up again. It is time to break the cycle. Leave the incentive licensing troll alone. He keeps posting the same garbage again and again in all the threads that have to do with code/no-code, ARRL, and licensing hoping for somebody else to go round and round with. Poor Keith has nothing better to do than to argue. Keith, lets hear it again. Incentive licensing is terrible because...
Hello Keith up there in the Great White North. Give my regards to Bob and Doug Mckenzie. You are now the International Hosehead of the Year.
UG
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The great and mysterious UG wrote: "Arguing with Keith the Canadian is like arguing with a parrot or an echo. You can't win. It keeps talking back. It is also like sinking in quicksand. The more you argue, the deeper you sink."
------------------------------
And it would appear that YOU, my friend, are the one now sinking further into the quicksand.
That's because, so far in this thread, you've called me a "fricking communist", a "hosehead", a "radio retard" as well as "schizoid".
Yet, beyond your vitriolic, personal attacks (and calling my posts "garbage") you've offered not ONE word of rational thought or supportable evidence to counter anything I've said.
Maybe that's because you can't.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by AG4RQ on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Hiram Percy Maxim's own words:
Hiram Percy Maxim, W1AW
President ARRL
From September 1927 QST
Sitting back in the old armchair, with the last issue of QST read from cover to cover and with everybody else in the house asleep hours ago, I fell to thinking of amateur radio today and amateur radio of other days. As the blue smoke curls slowly upward from the old pipe, visions of early ARRL Directors Meetings floated before me. I see those old timers grappling with problems of organization, with QRM, with trunk line traffic and rival amateur leagues. I see sinister commercial and government interests at work seeking to exterminate amateur radio. They were dark days, those early days.
Today I see amateur radio an institution, recognized by our American government and on the road to recognition by the other governments of the world. I see a fine, loyal ARRL membership of 20,000 standing shoulder to shoulder and believing in each other and still blazing the way in radio communication. I see a rapidly developing world wide amateur radio brotherhood taking shape in the form of our I.A.R.U.
And as the last embers of the old pipe turn to gray ash, I ask how it all came about: that the ARRL should have succeeded and all its opponents failed. The answer is clear. It is because with our opponents there was always some kind of selfish motive to be served for someone, whereas in our ARRL, we insisted from the beginning that no selfish motive for anybody or anything should ever prevail. Everything that ARRL undertakes must be 100% for the general good. That policy bred loyalty and confidence. With those two things an organization can prosper forever.
Hiram Percy Maxim --
September 2, 1869 - February 17, 1936
The above was published in the March, 2004 edition of the K9YA Telegraph
|
| |
|
ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation by B
|
|
|
by KN4LF on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Keith KB1SF/VA3KSF had his head and arse handed to him
on a plate in the same thread on QRZ.com. So now he shows up here on eHam.net creating hate and discontent. We all wondered where he ran off too.
The guy hates all the traditions within ham radio that has made the service great. I also suspect that he is a self hating white man. That would explain why he thinks like a female.
- -... ...- -,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
kn4lf@earthlink.net
KN4LF SWL & Amateur Radio Autobiography: http://www.kn4lf.com
New Scientific Evidence for the Existence of God: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thomas (KN4LF) wrote: "Keith KB1SF/VA3KSF had his head and arse handed to him
on a plate in the same thread on QRZ.com. So now he shows up here on eHam.net creating hate and discontent. We all wondered where he ran off too (sic).
The guy hates all the traditions within ham radio that has made the service great. I also suspect that he is a self hating white man. That would explain why he thinks like a female."
-------------------------
Gee, fellas, can't ANY of you come up with anything more substantive to support your ever-more-out-of-touch positions on these issues than racial and gender-based slurs?
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by N4DSP on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks for the post Tom, KN4LF. I did not know that Keith was run off qrz.com and we now have a pretty good idea what Captain America is all about here on eHam. I for one will not waste any more of my time with him by replying to any of his comments.
73
john-n4dsp
________________________________________________________
"Keith KB1SF/VA3KSF had his head and arse handed to him
on a plate in the same thread on QRZ.com. So now he shows up here on eHam.net creating hate and discontent. We all wondered where he ran off too.
The guy hates all the traditions within ham radio that has made the service great. I also suspect that he is a self hating white man. That would explain why he thinks like a female."
- -... ...- -,
Thomas F. Giella, KN4LF
Lakeland, FL, USA
kn4lf@earthlink.net
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by KB1SF on April 1, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
John (N4DSP) wrote: "I did not know that Keith was run off qrz.com and we now have a pretty good idea what Captain America is all about here on eHam. I for one will not waste any more of my time with him by replying to any of his comments."
----------------------------
Don’t bother, John. I've now had quite enough of all this foolishness.
And, for the record, I wasn't "run off" from QRZ… I simply left because I ran into the same horrendously "head up and locked" crowd over there as I seem to have now run into over here…people who absolutely don' t want to be confused with facts because their minds are clearly (and obsessively) already made up.
That is, I have FAR better things to do with my time than to continue wasting it on clearly hopeless attempts at sharing learning with horribly narrow-minded people.
Or, to put it another way, I simply don' know how to effectively converse with people who apparently (and firmly) believe that boorish name-calling is synonymous with intelligent discourse.
Keith
KB1SF / VA3KSF
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on April 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"And, for the record, I wasn't "run off" from QRZ… I simply left because I ran into the same horrendously "head up and locked" crowd over there as I seem to have now run into over here…"
Some people get REALLY upset when you dare to disagree with their personal ajenda. And if you dare to demonstrate that their arguments just don't hold water in the real world, they get really mad!
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on April 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"can't ANY of you come up with anything more substantive to support your ever-more-out-of-touch positions on these issues than racial and gender-based slurs".
Ghee-wiz, Keith, that argument seems so strange comming from someone that so frequently invokes "discrimination", in his arguments, don't you think? How come its OK for YOU to invoke "discrimination" but not OK when others do so?
|
| |
|
RE: ARRL Offers Alternate Approach to 'Regulation
|
|
|
by W9WHE-II on April 2, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
KB1SF writes:
"That is, I have FAR better things to do with my time than to continue wasting it on clearly hopeless attempts at sharing learning with horribly narrow-minded people".
Anybody that disagrees with Keith is hopelessly "narrow-minded". Talk about intollerance! HOW DARE you disagree with Keith's opinions.
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to discussions on this article.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Other News Articles
Deltona Youth Loves to Ham It Up on the Radio:
Blackwood's Radio Link To Titanic Commemorated:
Red Cross Honors 2 for Crucial Radio Coordination After Joplin Tornado:
Propagation Forecast Bulletin #06 de K7RA:
Amateur Radio Exempted from IL. Law:
|
